2016 (10) TMI 730

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spute is with reference to the refund claims filed by the appellant before the Jurisdictional Authorities claiming that the reversal of Cenvat credits made during the period December 1998 and October 1999 were made by them under protest on the instructions of the Departmental officers during their visit to the appellant's factory. The plea of the appellant is that the credits availed by them were done so properly. They filed two refund claims on 22/12/2000 and 15/1/2001 claiming an amount of Rs. 5,41,805/- and Rs. 2,02,132/-. Out of these two claims, the claim for Rs. 2,45,885/stands paid and the rest stand rejected on the ground of time bar. The issue has come before this Tribunal three times already. In the last remand vide the order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n which the refund claims were filed for the first time on 22/12/2000 and 15/01/01 would have to be treated as the date of discovery of mistake". 2.  On reconsideration of the matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the reversal of Cenvat credits made on 28/10/09 as well as on 28th and 29th of December, 1998 had been made by the appellant on their own and accordingly held that both the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.  In the present appeal, the appellant has drawn my attention to the order-in-original dated 27/8/2001 in which he has drawn my attention to the first paragraph in which the following wordings appear :- "The party wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were filed for the first time). 5.  I have heard Shri Prashant Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri R.K. Mishra, learned DR for the Revenue. The DR, while reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, he submits that the letter referred to by the appellant and discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) reads as follows :  "This has reference to your visit for inspection of our factory during the period 26/12/98 to 29/12/98. As pointed out during the inspection, we have reversed the credit on Polyester Two involved in RC Noil". 6.  He has raised doubt about the genuineness of the letter in as much as the letter does not have any date. The appellant is also not able to....